11–20 of 273 posts
Replace "18-22 year olds" with "blacks" or "Muslims" Is it still ethical? Legal? Effective?
Fair point, funny how capriciously we treat the rights and welfare of the young these days. Try cutting the social security COLA by 1%? Get a riot. Destroy the economic livelihoods of a generation of new entrants to the economy? No problemo, my stocks and real estate portfolio is doing great!
Replace "18-22 year olds" with "blacks" or "Muslims" Is it still ethical? Legal? Effective?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair point, funny how capriciously we treat the rights and welfare of the young these days. Try cutting the social security COLA by 1%? Get a riot. Destroy the economic livelihoods of a generation of new entrants to the economy? No problemo, my stocks and real estate portfolio is doing great!
This suggests younger cohorts need robust efforts to protect their rights when continued curtailment is attempted by those who aren’t offering up sufficient compensation and recourse for the impacted. Can’t expect a generation to go through two economic catastrophes (GFC, Covid) without support and expect positive results. Things will just go from bad to worse.
Replace "18-22 year olds" with "blacks" or "Muslims" Is it still ethical? Legal? Effective?
Why though? > Is it still ethical? No, it wouldn't be. All young people, regardless of race, deserve equal protection from their own stupidity. > Legal? No, it wouldn't be. > Effective? For those lucky young people, it would be. But that screws all the young people of other races/religions.
https://www.dailycamera.com/2020/09/24/boulder-county-issues...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This suggests younger cohorts need robust efforts to protect their rights when continued curtailment is attempted by those who aren’t offering up sufficient compensation and recourse for the impacted. Can’t expect a generation to go through two economic catastrophes (GFC, Covid) without support and expect positive results. Things will just go from bad to worse.
Perhaps they should vote.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why though? > Is it still ethical? No, it wouldn't be. All young people, regardless of race, deserve equal protection from their own stupidity. > Legal? No, it wouldn't be. > Effective? For those lucky young people, it would be. But that screws all the young people of other races/religions.
At 21 I was out of university with master's degree in physics, working full time and providing for my family (however small) and making all kinds of life choices. Where would I be in your book?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair point, funny how capriciously we treat the rights and welfare of the young these days. Try cutting the social security COLA by 1%? Get a riot. Destroy the economic livelihoods of a generation of new entrants to the economy? No problemo, my stocks and real estate portfolio is doing great!
People who receive social security actually vote, unlike the young.
Replace "18-22 year olds" with "blacks" or "Muslims" Is it still ethical? Legal? Effective?
It's interesting how we can use age (selectively) as a discriminator, but within a certain range and in certain contexts, it's seen as "bad" to discriminate. Most wouldn't say the concept of a retirement age is discriminatory, nor the concept of age of consent or minimum age to purchase alcohol, or pricing insurance rates differently based on age. Somehow this application of age discrimination seems to cross the line…
Age limits make sense in some contexts but we need some consistency.